Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited

[crs1026]

That said, and forgetting that all numbers at the 6 week point are meaningless, why is the ttcriders count of 14 people per train more valid/valuable than Metrolinx' own figures of 3,250 people per day? Or am I to assume that you think the lack of granularity in the ML figures indicates they are lying but ttcriders is not? Help me with what your comment there means?

The "observers" - I agree they were not achieving "research" - counted 14 for some trains. Have they proven that statistic? No, their method is flimsy. But - can we declare that a fact anyways? Arguably, yes - 3250 people/128 trains (an average of 25/train) in a skewed distribution, makes that likely.

My 'granular' remark simply meant - ML has the train by train count, with 99%+ accuracy. They would likely tell us if they know that there are no 14-rider trains. Or if the actual story for the day and times of the "research" differed greatly from what was reported, validly or not.

What the "researchers" achieved is - profile on a fact that we already knew. They didn't improve our knowledge, they just made us like that fact less. That's effective advocacy even if it's dubious research.

But are the ridership numbers low? Is 3,250 ppl/day at this point low? Are the fares high?

For a startup state, the figures are not surprising. Since it started, UP has proven to be very reliable and a good customer experience. They have done considerable advertising, and the media has played them up. So all in all it is a promising start.

But yes, I would say there is 'sticker shock' out there. It's not an unreasonable price given a likely end state of steady all-day business (with some ups and downs over the day) and in relation to the taxi/limo market benchmark. It's just high enough for people to question on a gut level and to deter making use of it occasionally. (Although I continue to be amazed at the number of people I know, and not hard core enthusiasts, who admit having come into town to kick the tires)

That, however, is no reason to fabricate "studies" and numbers to critique UP.......a service that with reduced fares and used at as a commuter service would just frustrate the commuting public due to its lack of capacity.
Be critical of the lack of GO trains (I will join you at the sit in ) but don't mix your issues with UP....they are separate matters entirely.

I will bring the condiments and the paper plates

The only thing that I can think of that ML could do to jump-start UPE ridership growth is lower the prices for a bit. That would appease the sticker shock and the haters of empty seats, and it would have the benefit of moving a few non-airport travellers through a busy city. (I'm not suggesting a super-bargain price, I agree we don't want to pull people away from GO or TTC).

It's not the pure core of what UPE is meant to do, but it would 'walk the talk' in terms of promoting transit, promoting this service, etc. The optics of just letting empty seats go unsold is very poor, even if we understand why it is done. (I'm a sample of one, but - this "study', for its flaws, was all it took to make me forget my resolution to not comment about this for a few months yet!). The public understands loss-leaders, and many would look to ML to take some action beyond wait-and-see.

- Paul

 

[ehlow]

I agree. From what I understand, they did a head-count during one two-hour window. That is not scientific at all. Calling that research is an insult to researchers all across the planet.

It's also not a stretch that they had a specific preferred result in mind before the study happened.. I mean, obviously, they wanted the research to support their organization's objectives.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I don't think anyone (certainly not me) is accusing those folks of lying about their numbers. But I do take exception to what they did being called research or them being referred to as researchers. They sat for 2 hours and counted people. That is not research that is, well, doing a limited sample head count. A few weeks ago I went to a TFC match that had 17k people at it.....can I safely assume that this is the TFC attendance and that there is absolutely no need for a 30k stadium? Of course not. Not only is it unclear why they chose any 2 hour window....it is not clear why they chose that 2 hour window....it is also unclear if they did indeed sample multiple 2 hour windows but chose to lambaste the service on that particular window. Their numbers may be correct for the observations that they made in the period they reported on.....but that is not research.

That said, and forgetting that all numbers at the 6 week point are meaningless, why is the ttcriders count of 14 people per train more valid/valuable than Metrolinx' own figures of 3,250 people per day? Or am I to assume that you think the lack of granularity in the ML figures indicates they are lying but ttcriders is not? Help me with what your comment there means?



But are the ridership numbers low? Is 3,250 ppl/day at this point low? Are the fares high? No matter how often groups like to pick the highest cash fare possible and put that out as the "per ride" cost it just isn't so......there are multiple different discounts available and, the simplest one, simply involves using a presto card to pay the fare.




The issue here is not UP....its the lack of other public transit running on the available infrastructure. I have been a long time critic of the lack of GO rail service in this corridor (to the annoyance of many here, I might say) and I full agree that more GO trains should be running in this corridor in both directions, 7 days a week. That is what the commuting public needs/wants......and getting more 10 car GO trains running up and down the line more often will provide a meaningful service and meaningful capacity. That, however, is no reason to fabricate "studies" and numbers to critique UP.......a service that with reduced fares and used at as a commuter service would just frustrate the commuting public due to its lack of capacity.

Be critical of the lack of GO trains (I will join you at the sit in ) but don't mix your issues with UP....they are separate matters entirely.

Once again I feel toareafan hits the nail on the head with a well thought out clear reply. If it's more transit we want let's advocate for that, let's not criticize up because we want an lrt on jane.

 

[nfitz]

I'm quite disappointed over time with the lack of balance or accuracy coming out of TTCRiders over the last year or two. They may be pro-transit, but they are often ignorant, biased, and just plain wrong. They seem to be playing political games rather than advocating for transit. They also seems to be shilling the NDP at times ... which seems odd given how little the NDP said about transit during the last provincial election.

 

[Juan_Lennon416]

They may be pro-transit, but they are often ignorant, biased, and just plain wrong.

http://www.ttcriders.ca/who-we-are/

They sound like many of the members here

 

[ssiguy2]

Just because ridership is where Metrolinx forecast it would be doesn't mean it's not a policy failure. These very low numbers do not constitute any kind of success when considering it cost $500 million to build. It's easy to claim success when you set the standards so low.

 

[nfitz]

http://www.ttcriders.ca/who-we-are/

They sound like many of the members here

Interesting ... some very left-wing folks there. I don't recognize any from here though.

Just because ridership is where Metrolinx forecast it would be doesn't mean it's not a policy failure. These very low numbers do not constitute any kind of success when considering it cost $500 million to build. It's easy to claim success when you set the standards so low.

It doesn't mean it's not a policy failure either.

In particular the TTCrider freak-out has been proved to be completely bogus. Ridership is on track to what was expected. That's a very different issue than should it have been built in the first place. Given it has been built, I really don't see the point of continuing that debate.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The number of student council reps is impressive.

AoD

 

[CDL.TO]

It's interesting to compare them to the Strapangers Campaign in New York.

Straphangers tries to pressure the MTA into providing better service, focussing on issues such as reliability, frequency, and maintenance. TTC Riders seems to be more focussed on fares and higher levels of government.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Straphangers tries to pressure the MTA into providing better service, focussing on issues such as reliability, frequency, and maintenance. TTC Riders seems to be more focussed on fares and higher levels of government.

Unfortunately fares is a relatively minor issue compared to capacity and other problems. Of course, it would be interesting to see where they stand on international standards like operational labour efficiency, use of technology, etc. The org as it stands sounded like an unapologetic proxy of the labour unions.

AoD

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Interesting analysis for not knowing the dates. No, there was absolutely no meltdown between 2003 and 2004. It was long after 9/11 and tech downturn and long before the great recession.

Thought I mentioned timing relative to the AT&T purchase (roughly 18 months prior) but perhaps not. I discount that as a reason (raising capital) because they 1) took pennies on the dollar, 2) raised operating costs by relocating and increasing pay for many staff, and 3) AT&T was actually a customer.

If it was a single company in the GTA I wouldn't have paid any notice. That it was several within a very short time span makes it far more interesting.

You didn't put any dates in the post I quoted/debated. So, I Googled the dates of purchase and sale of the companies you mentioned, and they were owned through the period I mentioned. If it took them an extra couple of years to come to a 'sell' decision, and in-between they bought AT&T(!), and so would be looking to rationalize divisions, I think your 'no helipad in downtown Toronto' argument is more likely to be out to lunch then less. But, whatever. Not really worth arguing over.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

I don't think anyone (certainly not me) is accusing those folks of lying about their numbers. But I do take exception to what they did being called research or them being referred to as researchers. They sat for 2 hours and counted people. That is not research that is, well, doing a limited sample head count. A few weeks ago I went to a TFC match that had 17k people at it.....can I safely assume that this is the TFC attendance and that there is absolutely no need for a 30k stadium? Of course not. Not only is it unclear why they chose any 2 hour window....it is not clear why they chose that 2 hour window....it is also unclear if they did indeed sample multiple 2 hour windows but chose to lambaste the service on that particular window. Their numbers may be correct for the observations that they made in the period they reported on.....but that is not research.

That said, and forgetting that all numbers at the 6 week point are meaningless, why is the ttcriders count of 14 people per train more valid/valuable than Metrolinx' own figures of 3,250 people per day? Or am I to assume that you think the lack of granularity in the ML figures indicates they are lying but ttcriders is not? Help me with what your comment there means?



But are the ridership numbers low? Is 3,250 ppl/day at this point low? Are the fares high? No matter how often groups like to pick the highest cash fare possible and put that out as the "per ride" cost it just isn't so......there are multiple different discounts available and, the simplest one, simply involves using a presto card to pay the fare.




The issue here is not UP....its the lack of other public transit running on the available infrastructure. I have been a long time critic of the lack of GO rail service in this corridor (to the annoyance of many here, I might say) and I full agree that more GO trains should be running in this corridor in both directions, 7 days a week. That is what the commuting public needs/wants......and getting more 10 car GO trains running up and down the line more often will provide a meaningful service and meaningful capacity. That, however, is no reason to fabricate "studies" and numbers to critique UP.......a service that with reduced fares and used at as a commuter service would just frustrate the commuting public due to its lack of capacity.

Be critical of the lack of GO trains (I will join you at the sit in ) but don't mix your issues with UP....they are separate matters entirely.

UP and GO can never be separate as they are in the same corridor. I bet you would think if UP increased service and GO Kitchener didn't they would be separate matters as well?

 

[Jonny5]

It's interesting to compare them to the Strapangers Campaign in New York.

Straphangers tries to pressure the MTA into providing better service, focussing on issues such as reliability, frequency, and maintenance. TTC Riders seems to be more focussed on fares and higher levels of government.

It's a great example of how people ignore the big picture for irrelevant trivialities like the dollar cost of individual fares and monthly passes, which level of government funds what, and how they pay for it (of which the overwhelming majority are completely clueless).

Toronto is about $4 billion is debt.

The MTA is $35 billion in debt. The annual interest on the MTA debt alone is double the total subsidy to operate the TTC.

 

[TOareaFan]

UP and GO can never be separate as they are in the same corridor. I bet you would think if UP increased service and GO Kitchener didn't they would be separate matters as well?

there is room for both....the fact that ML has been slow to increase the GO service does not change the value proposition/business case of the UP

 

[mdrejhon]

Thought experiment.

Theoretically, Fed goes orange this year.

Mulcair being a dual citizen of France, country of TGV high speed trains, has proclaimed a big love of high speed trains and already promised HSR initiatives for Canada.

Here are the current facts:
1. Pearson is a station in Ontario's now-apparently-timely high speed rail EA
2. UPX wants to electrify (as known in this thread)
3. SmartTrack, en electrified transit, may have an airport stop (as known in this thread)

What if this happened instead:
1. We run UPX diesels mostly to EOL (~2030), made popular by lower fare ($10 Presto/$15 cash)
2. 2024: SmartTrack allstops begins going to the airport
3. 2030: UPX diesels discontinued to free corridor for HSR. High speed trains begin next day.

High speed trains become the express train to airport (not just for Toronto users, but also for Kitchener users too). No electric UPX trains would ever be introduced. The details does not matter (high speed trains might need to stop at a future Woodbine or other station, and you'd transfer to SmartTrack or a LINK extension, or whatever). SmartTrack, the allstop airport train. HSR, the fast express airport train. The real point is how UPX plans will be disrupted.

Ontario's HSR planning (along with a few west provinces) may metaphorically receive a federal donation of a dozen JATO thrusters bolted to an engine, and nitroglycerin added to the tank. Put on those BOSE® noise-cancelling headphones shortly after Oct 19 (election date).

The concept of high speed trains arriving sooner than expected, out of surprise. And how it affects UPX electrification, maybe even market-spinned as the cheaper, faster, electrified multi-city-friendly replacement of UPX.

Bookmark this permalink. Let's see how prescient this post is.